Day of the Lord

[CoreIssue]

I read through the link as far as my limited understanding of language would allow, (I have no experience of study in Greek or Hebrew) and am willing to allow you your interpretation as the DOTL to be longer than a literal 24 hour period. I have no argument against that, so will let it lie.
What I do not, nor can I accept, is the commonly held belief in a future literal 7 year period and the reasoning associated with it concerning the AC, the mid term peace treaty, the re-establishment of the Jewish temple etc etc. Most of all that scenario is based on the faulty hermeneutic that rips a week away from Daniels 70 weeks, for no sound exegetical reason, and on top of that reads literal into every other prophetic time period and casting them all into an unknown and unknowable future.

Read the 70th week along side Revelations. They match.

 

[Keraz]

For a long time it has been a conundrum for me to understand why futurists accept the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as figurative, accurately understanding it to mean 490 literal years, even to the point of separating the last week from the 70 and giving it a future 7 year application, yet discarding that hermeneutic and trashing it to make every other time prophecy as literal, such as the 1260 days, and 42 months.


Aside from making things look like God's left hand doesn't know what HIs right hand is doing.

God knows what He is doing all right! It is humans that get confused and seemingly unable to understand plain Words.

The Seventy 'weeks' of Daniel 9:25-26, is 490 years, proved by the first 69 'weeks' = 483 years being the exact time from the decree of Artaxerxes to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
As there is no definitive 7 year period after Jesus Ascended, we know that it remains to be fulfilled. Proved by the fact of it being divided into 2 halves. Daniel 9:27 It is the second half that is prophesied about in Revelation, in 3 ways: 1260 days, 42 months and 3.5 years. The final 3.5 years of this Christian era, then Jesus will Return and commence His Millennium reign.

 

[CoreIssue]

="brakelite, post: 487014, member: 6216"]For a long time it has been a conundrum for me to understand why futurists accept the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as figurative,

That is a false claim. The 70 weeks are absolutely literal.

 

[Naomi25]

That is a false claim. The 70 weeks are absolutely literal.

You are missing his point. That point is, Daniel doesn't outright say 490 years, does he? He words it in a way that is figurative. You take it literally, you take the representation of those "weeks" to be very true. And we are not arguing that point. In fact, for me, it rather nicely makes my point. The point that things can be presented in a figurative manner, but still represent important truths we need to take seriously.

 

[CoreIssue]

You are missing his point. That point is, Daniel doesn't outright say 490 years, does he? He words it in a way that is figurative. You take it literally, you take the representation of those "weeks" to be very true. And we are not arguing that point. In fact, for me, it rather nicely makes my point. The point that things can be presented in a figurative manner, but still represent important truths we need to take seriously.

Hebrew week of years is seven years. There are 70, which is 490 years.

I haven't done it in a while but when you pull up the time from the starting proclamation to the death of Christ it is 483 years.

Your problem is you just don't want to believe.

When you tell someone it will take three days to accomplish it do you literally mean 72 hours? No.

Deal with how the Hebrews calculated time literally and figuratively.

You do not seem to understand that in linguistics figurative phrases that have known literal and accepted meanings are to be understood literally.

 

[Naomi25]

Hebrew week of years is seven years. There are 70, which is 490 years.

I haven't done it in a while but when you pull up the time from the starting proclamation to the death of Christ it is 483 years.

I'm not saying its not 490 years. I'm saying that by using 'weeks', especially weeks of 7 to portray that time period, we can see that prophectic literature, especially apocalyptic literature, uses numbers in ways that are not, perhaps, as literalistic as you would have it. That's sort of big.

Your problem is you just don't want to believe.

When you tell someone it will take three days to accomplish it do you literally mean 72 hours? No.

Deal with how the Hebrews calculated time literally and figuratively.

I "don't want to believe it"? See...this is where you are very wrong. To be bluntly honest, I'd love to get on board the Dispensational wagon. It's like a wondrous fairy tale and some days I'd love nothing better than be able to believe what you guys are preaching. But the overwhelming facts are...I cannot ignore that the bible is too clear on many matters...matters that you and those like you have not been able to answer. Too many holes, too many inconsistencies. For instance:
I'm supposed to "deal with" how the Hebrews calculate time? You say that because they measure a day from sun down to sun up that that means it's not a 24 hour period. Really? You also say that you can justify, from scripture, that "day" doesn't mean 24 hour period. And yet, when others suggest the very same thing in other places, you wig out and start shaking the literal card on them. But then...literal you are not? I would suppose that if we were to take scripture truly literally, then if it said something took "72 hours", then you should read it such. Your hermeneutic locks you into that, not mine.
Make up your mind...you cannot have it both ways.

You do not seem to understand that in linguistics figurative phrases that have known literal and accepted meanings are to be understood literally.

Welll, linguistically, "figurative" means: "departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical"
So I would imagine that while something written figuratively could represent something that happens quite literally, you cannot actually change the word into something else.
It's not a coincedence that God used 7 weeks to represent a time period, rather than just saying 490. 7 represents perfection, completion, and so he was communicating that when this time period of 'weeks' had been fulfilled, the time period would be finished perfectly. The figurative language used here represented an idea beyond just a time period itself, but also the perfection of God's plan, and his sovereignty over it.
When we reach a book like Revelation, we see number usage explode with similar meaning. 7 is all over the place and you cannot ignore it. Do we suppose that every time the number 7 is listed that there are actual 7 things or people happening? Perhaps...perhaps there is a literal fulfilment to that, just as there is also 7 days of the week. But we also must recognize the vast symbolic weight behind the number showing up again and again. And 7 is hardly the only number used in scripture and in Revelation. When talking of 1000, as we do when talking about the Millennium, we must see how scripture has used it before. I've pointed these out before, but I'll mention them again. When the bible says that God owns the cattle on a 1000 hilltops, do we suppose that that's all God owns? The cows on hilltop number 1001 belong to someone else? No, of course not. The number is being used symbolically to portray God's ownership of all things. Again, the number is used when God tells his people that he will keep his covenant and steadfast love to those who love him to a thousand generations. Does that mean the next generation down the line after that is plum out of luck? No, again, the number is used symbolically. By symbolically of what? Of completeness, that's what. He owns everything, completely. His covenant faithfulness will stretch over every generation. And the 1000 years, however long they be, will see his purposes fufilled completely...be that a literal 1000 or not a literal 1000 years.

 

[brakelite]

God knows what He is doing all right! It is humans that get confused and seemingly unable to understand plain Words.

The Seventy 'weeks' of Daniel 9:25-26, is 490 years, proved by the first 69 'weeks' = 483 years being the exact time from the decree of Artaxerxes to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
As there is no definitive 7 year period after Jesus Ascended, we know that it remains to be fulfilled. Proved by the fact of it being divided into 2 halves. Daniel 9:27 It is the second half that is prophesied about in Revelation, in 3 ways: 1260 days, 42 months and 3.5 years. The final 3.5 years of this Christian era, then Jesus will Return and commence His Millennium reign.

The 69 weeks do not reach as far as the crucifixion... But to Christ's baptism... His anointing as Messiah... Hence the reason the prophecy states "to Messiah the Prince"Daniel 7:25. It is in the midst of the final week that He was cut off, but for others. Daniel 9:26.27
It is a grave error to rip out portions of a messianic prophecy and apply it to another other than Messiah.

 

[CoreIssue]

I'm not saying its not 490 years. I'm saying that by using 'weeks', especially weeks of 7 to portray that time period, we can see that prophectic literature, especially apocalyptic literature, uses numbers in ways that are not, perhaps, as literalistic as you would have it. That's sort of big.


I "don't want to believe it"? See...this is where you are very wrong. To be bluntly honest, I'd love to get on board the Dispensational wagon. It's like a wondrous fairy tale and some days I'd love nothing better than be able to believe what you guys are preaching. But the overwhelming facts are...I cannot ignore that the bible is too clear on many matters...matters that you and those like you have not been able to answer. Too many holes, too many inconsistencies. For instance:
I'm supposed to "deal with" how the Hebrews calculate time? You say that because they measure a day from sun down to sun up that that means it's not a 24 hour period. Really? You also say that you can justify, from scripture, that "day" doesn't mean 24 hour period. And yet, when others suggest the very same thing in other places, you wig out and start shaking the literal card on them. But then...literal you are not? I would suppose that if we were to take scripture truly literally, then if it said something took "72 hours", then you should read it such. Your hermeneutic locks you into that, not mine.
Make up your mind...you cannot have it both ways.





Welll, linguistically, "figurative" means: "departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical"
So I would imagine that while something written figuratively could represent something that happens quite literally, you cannot actually change the word into something else.
It's not a coincedence that God used 7 weeks to represent a time period, rather than just saying 490. 7 represents perfection, completion, and so he was communicating that when this time period of 'weeks' had been fulfilled, the time period would be finished perfectly. The figurative language used here represented an idea beyond just a time period itself, but also the perfection of God's plan, and his sovereignty over it.
When we reach a book like Revelation, we see number usage explode with similar meaning. 7 is all over the place and you cannot ignore it. Do we suppose that every time the number 7 is listed that there are actual 7 things or people happening? Perhaps...perhaps there is a literal fulfilment to that, just as there is also 7 days of the week. But we also must recognize the vast symbolic weight behind the number showing up again and again. And 7 is hardly the only number used in scripture and in Revelation. When talking of 1000, as we do when talking about the Millennium, we must see how scripture has used it before. I've pointed these out before, but I'll mention them again. When the bible says that God owns the cattle on a 1000 hilltops, do we suppose that that's all God owns? The cows on hilltop number 1001 belong to someone else? No, of course not. The number is being used symbolically to portray God's ownership of all things. Again, the number is used when God tells his people that he will keep his covenant and steadfast love to those who love him to a thousand generations. Does that mean the next generation down the line after that is plum out of luck? No, again, the number is used symbolically. By symbolically of what? Of completeness, that's what. He owns everything, completely. His covenant faithfulness will stretch over every generation. And the 1000 years, however long they be, will see his purposes fufilled completely...be that a literal 1000 or not a literal 1000 years.

I repeat, in semantics and linguistics a figurative expression with a commonly known meaning is literal.

 

[Jay Ross]

The problem that I have is that if you reverse the recipe that is used to generate the Chronological timeline of say Ussher, then you will also get the same answer by working in reverse.

Ussher's Old Testament was based on a wrong understanding of the times and the timeline was forced to fit that timeline. It was a creative use of maths to force the fits necessary to get his timeline right for his purposes. God's chronological timeline is much more interesting.

Shalom

 

[Keraz]

The 69 weeks do not reach as far as the crucifixion... But to Christ's baptism... His anointing as Messiah... Hence the reason the prophecy states "to Messiah the Prince"Daniel 7:25. It is in the midst of the final week that He was cut off, but for others. Daniel 9:26.27
It is a grave error to rip out portions of a messianic prophecy and apply it to another other than Messiah.

It is you that has dug a 'grave error"!
Daniel 9:26 After the 62 [+ 7 'weeks] have passed, the Anointed Prince will be removed...…
Plain, in your face Bible truth; the Crucifixion happened at the end of the 69th week. The 70th week remains to be fulfilled in the future, as Jesus says. Matthew 24:15

 

[Naomi25]

I repeat, in semantics and linguistics a figurative expression with a commonly known meaning is literal.

Except when you say it does not: "24 hours does not equal a day". Your inconsistencies are showing. You cannot lay down blanket statements about linguistic rules when your own interreptive rules are inconsistent and full of holes.
If...and this is a big if...if you want to show that every and all case of these "weeks" are always interpreted as years, so much so that of course Daniel didn't write them down as years, because writing them as weeks was basically the same thing for them...then you...YOU need to show, case and point, examples of such.
As it is, we have nothing but your word on the thing, and considering you say on one hand that it is fine to list 24 hours as a "not day" but shame on me for suggesting 1000 years is not a 1000 years (hypocrisy much), then I think the onus is on you. I have seen no scripture from you backing up your ideas, only your thoughts. Come on man, if you believe this to be true, show me! I'm not opposed to changing my mind if God's word says it to be true. But your word is not something I consider weighty enough. Give me bible verses, or stop with the contradictory hermeneutics.

 

[brakelite]

It is you that has dug a 'grave error"!
Daniel 9:26 After the 62 [+ 7 'weeks] have passed, the Anointed Prince will be removed...…
Plain, in your face Bible truth; the Crucifixion happened at the end of the 69th week. The 70th week remains to be fulfilled in the future, as Jesus says. Matthew 24:15

Dan 9:25

(A) "Know therefore and understand, that"

(B) "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"

- There were actually four commands issued that can be located in scripture and must be considered:

(1) Ezra 1:1-14, 1st year of Cyrus, dated to 537 B.C.
(2) Ezra 6:1-12, 2nd year of Darius dated to 520 B.C.
(3) Ezra 7:1-27, 7th year of Artaxerxes dated to 457 B.C.
(4) Neh 2:1-8, 20th year of Artaxerxes dated to 444 B.C.

DECREE DATE...………………….. 69 WEEKS 483 YEARS...……..70 WEEKS 490 YEARS
Ezra 1 537 B.C. …………………...54 B.C...………………………………………………. 47 B.C.
Ezra 6 520 B.C...…………………. 37 B.C.............................................30 B.C.
Ezra 7 457 B.C...……………. 27 A.D...…………………………………... 34 A.D.
Neh 2 444 B.C..................….40 A.D...………………………………………………. 47 A.D.
Given the generally accepted age of 30 for Jesus (Luke 3:23) at His baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1) which can be independantly and firmly established as 27 A.D., only one of the decrees fits, that being the 3rd decree given in Ezra 7 in the fall of 457 B.C.* The others are either too early or too late to be the command referred to. The decree in Ezra 7 (vs. 23-26), permits civil and religious autonomy to be restored in Jerusalem in compliance with God's law, fulfilling Daniel's prophecy. So starting in the fall of 457 B.C. places the end of the 70 weeks, or 490 years, in the fall of 34 A.D., placing the year of the crucifixion, (which happened in the middle of the 70th week of Daniel), at the Spring of 31 A.D.
From 457BC to 27AD is precisely 483 years. The prophecy specifically states that the 69 weeks will be met at the time of "Messiah the Prince"...not at Messiah's death. That time was when He was anointed as Messiah when the holy Spirit came upon Him at His baptism. Jesus Himself alluded to the completion of this part of the prophecy when He said, "The time is fulfilled...." Mark 1:15
That final week began at His baptism. That final week, that final 7 years, was Christ's ministry to Israel, the first 3 and a half years in person, the last 3 1/2 years through the disciples, as He instructed them to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In the midst of that final week Messiah was cut off. At the end of the 490 years given exclusively to Israel, the gospel went to the Gentiles. Israel's probation was over.

 

[Keraz]

Ezra 7 457 B.C...……………. 27 A.D...…………………………………... 34 A.D.

Your calculation is wrong. 457 + 27 = 484 But rather that deducting a year for the BC/AD, you should add 2 years because we count the years from their commencement. This does make it worse; 485 years, but I question the dating of Artaxerxes reign.
It is difficult to be certain, but scholars do get 29 AD from Luke 3:1-2 and that fits the 7000 year timeline; 4000 years from Adam until Jesus started His ministry. Then 2000 years of this Church age, nearly over and finally 1000 years of King Jesus on earth.

The other failure of your premise that if the 70th 'week' happened in the 1st century, is there is no defining event at the end of it. Obviously Daniel 9:24b is not fulfilled yet.

 

[farouk]

Except when you say it does not: "24 hours does not equal a day". Your inconsistencies are showing. You cannot lay down blanket statements about linguistic rules when your own interreptive rules are inconsistent and full of holes.
If...and this is a big if...if you want to show that every and all case of these "weeks" are always interpreted as years, so much so that of course Daniel didn't write them down as years, because writing them as weeks was basically the same thing for them...then you...YOU need to show, case and point, examples of such.
As it is, we have nothing but your word on the thing, and considering you say on one hand that it is fine to list 24 hours as a "not day" but shame on me for suggesting 1000 years is not a 1000 years (hypocrisy much), then I think the onus is on you. I have seen no scripture from you backing up your ideas, only your thoughts. Come on man, if you believe this to be true, show me! I'm not opposed to changing my mind if God's word says it to be true. But your word is not something I consider weighty enough. Give me bible verses, or stop with the contradictory hermeneutics.

I do think that just because it says, 'the cattle on a thousand hillls are Thine' and the 'thousand' there is clearly figurative, it doesn't therefore supposedly 'prove' that every mention of a thousand in Scripture must be figurative also...

 

[brakelite]

Your calculation is wrong. 457 + 27 = 484 But rather that deducting a year for the BC/AD, you should add 2 years because we count the years from their commencement. This does make it worse; 485 years, but I question the dating of Artaxerxes reign.
It is difficult to be certain, but scholars do get 29 AD from Luke 3:1-2 and that fits the 7000 year timeline; 4000 years from Adam until Jesus started His ministry. Then 2000 years of this Church age, nearly over and finally 1000 years of King Jesus on earth.

The other failure of your premise that if the 70th 'week' happened in the 1st century, is there is no defining event at the end of it. Obviously Daniel 9:24b is not fulfilled yet.

The futurist interpretation of this passage denies the prophecy of Jesus' baptism in verse 24. It also denies His crucifixion in verse 27 and applies it instead to the antichrist, in an astounding twisting of scripture. I submit the futurist's house is built on sand and will not stand scrutiny. They do not have a case, they have a relatively recent fairy tale designed to obscure the truth and spread confusion, whether they know it or not. The author of that futurist fairy tale is the Catholic Church, specifically a Spanish Jesuit priest by the name of Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). During the counterreformation he concocted the futurist interpretation to deflect reformist claims that the Papacy was the Antichrist of scripture. There is apparently no evidence that the futurist interpretation predates the Catholic counterreformation. It was intended as a smoke screen, and it still works today to a large degree.

 

[Naomi25]

I do think that just because it says, 'the cattle on a thousand hillls are Thine' and the 'thousand' there is clearly figurative, it doesn't therefore supposedly 'prove' that every mention of a thousand in Scripture must be figurative also...

No, but correspondingly, Futurists can't claim that every time a number is used in scripture it must be absolutely literal in it's interpretation, don't you think? And yet they do (even when they don't necessarily follow through on that!).

 

[farouk]

No, but correspondingly, Futurists can't claim that every time a number is used in scripture it must be absolutely literal in it's interpretation, don't you think? And yet they do (even when they don't necessarily follow through on that!).

I must say that I'm dispensational in my own understanding...

 

[Naomi25]

I must say that I'm dispensational in my own understanding...

Ah well, we can't all be perfect.

Kidding! I know several. In fact, my own amazing Grandparents were Dispensational and boy did I love 'em! Best people in the world. So...while I don't agree with some issues...hermeneutical wise, I don't have a "hate on" for you. I kind of love how you guys are excited for the end times, and how you are, pretty much, a conservative bunch...bless you. And how your anticipation of the Rapture actually makes you all darn keen to tell others about Jesus.
And, don't get me wrong, there are holes in my 'system' too...I just think less than yours. But, having said that, I do think Dispensationalism has some strengths. I just think, when it comes down to it, you have to go with the one that you think remains most faithful to scripture. That's all we can do, really, isn't it? And I know Dispensationalist do that, just as I have. But if we are wise, we test each other...iron sharpens iron...that sort of thing. Because the truth should be able to stand. So we debate, we trade comments, sarcasm even, and hopefully, if we're serious about all this, many bible verses...and if what we think to be true stands under the weight, we can come away comforted that we are being Bereans to the best of our ability.

 

[farouk]

Ah well, we can't all be perfect.

Kidding! I know several. In fact, my own amazing Grandparents were Dispensational and boy did I love 'em! Best people in the world. So...while I don't agree with some issues...hermeneutical wise, I don't have a "hate on" for you. I kind of love how you guys are excited for the end times, and how you are, pretty much, a conservative bunch...bless you. And how your anticipation of the Rapture actually makes you all darn keen to tell others about Jesus.
And, don't get me wrong, there are holes in my 'system' too...I just think less than yours. But, having said that, I do think Dispensationalism has some strengths. I just think, when it comes down to it, you have to go with the one that you think remains most faithful to scripture. That's all we can do, really, isn't it? And I know Dispensationalist do that, just as I have. But if we are wise, we test each other...iron sharpens iron...that sort of thing. Because the truth should be able to stand. So we debate, we trade comments, sarcasm even, and hopefully, if we're serious about all this, many bible verses...and if what we think to be true stands under the weight, we can come away comforted that we are being Bereans to the best of our ability.

We do need to be Bereans, yes...

So what about the next generation in your family; have they emerged with a discernible view of a scheme of things in Scripture, yet?

 

[Naomi25]

We do need to be Bereans, yes...

So what about the next generation in your family; have they emerged with a discernible view of a scheme of things in Scripture, yet?

Actually, it was sort of interesting how it progressed. Mum and Dad never really talked about it, and I'm not sure they have any idea or opinion on it. Perhaps mum is growing one after talking to me, and after our Church just went through Revelation. Dad does not talk about things. Unless it's cars, or tools. So who knows what he thinks!
But Nana and Grandpa, they were legit. They had the Rapture magazines and the books, and they had that Rapture posture up. I grew up looking at that picture and was captivated by it. I only really became serious about my faith when I hit my twenties, and I began having some conversations with Grandpa about it, trying to find my feet, Dispensationally. He was that, so I was going to be that too. After all, if that's what they believed, it had to be right, right?
The problem was, I had questions. Some questions that just couldn't be answered. And then Grandpa died, and Nana had dementia. But...I sort of felt like it was almost a legacy...that I wanted to cement my understanding in End Times, to be sure. So I read. And read, and read. And of all the things I read, Amillennialism was, I thought, to be dismissed the first. Heretical! But....dang it. It answered some questions. It lined up with scripture. And the more I read the more holes I found in Dispensationalism (even though I DIDN'T want to!) and the more logical sense Amillennialism made. So eventually I had to give up and let scripture lead me, rather than what I wanted to be true lead me.
And, that's where I am today! Part of me still wants someone to swoop in with amazing Dispensational proof so I can do the "chariots of fire" slow motion run back into the fold...but rationally, I'm growing more convinced that won't happen as I read and study more.